Jharkhand High Court
Umesh Mahto Alias Karu Mahto Son Of Saklu ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 November, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 245 OF 2003
----
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
DATED 9TH JANUARY 2003 AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 10TH JANUARY, 2003
PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, HAZARIBAGH IN SESSIONS TRIAL
NO.617 OF 1999.
----
Umesh Mahto alias Karu Mahto son of Saklu Mahto, resident of
Village Barkajora, P.S. Gola, District Hazaribagh.
... Appellant
-versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
----
JUDGMENT
Dated, 14th November, 2024
By Court Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of
conviction dated 9th January, 2003 and order of sentence dated 10th
January, 2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in
Sessions Trial No.617 of 1999, arising out of Ramgarh Police Station Case
No.91 of 1999 [G.R. No. 612 of 1999], whereby and whereunder, the
appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302/201, 498A of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for one year
for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous
imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code; and simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
prosecution has miserably failed to put forth any material or evidence before
the Trial Court to bring home the charges against the appellant. He further
submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire
prosecution case is based on suspicion and presumption. There is possibility
that the deceased might have committed suicide. It is further submitted that
the place where the body of the deceased was found is a populated area but
no one saw any person committing the offence or throwing the body there.
He submits that there was no earlier complaint for the demand of dowry and
torture before the competent authority.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of the
appellant and submitted that the prosecution has proved the charges against
the appellant with cogent evidence and sufficient materials and the Trial
Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. He submitted that
there is sufficient evidence on record to show that there was demand of
dowry and torture. He further submits that aPanchayat meeting was held on
26.03.1999 to settle the dispute of dowry and torture in which the appellant
was directed not to torture or demand dowry, thereafter within one month
dead body of the deceased was found. He further submits that it is the
appellant who has committed the murder and thrown the body on the railway
track to give an impression of suicide. He lastly submits that no blood stains
were found on the railway track which establishes that this case is not of
suicide.
4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the
informant Gangadhar Mahto, recorded by the SI T.N. Singh at 10.15 Hrs. on
19.04.1999 near Rajrappa Washery Railway Track, Rajrappa, wherein it has
been alleged that at about 06.00 a.m. in the morning his son-in-law
(appellant) came to his home at Zobhiya and told that his daughter Namita
(deceased) is not traceable since yesterday. On being asked, appellant told
that she has fled somewhere. Having doubt, leaving the appellant with two
persons of the village, he went to the matrimonial home of his daughter and
tried to search for father-in-law and mother-in-law of his daughter, but
nobody was present and the door was locked. When asked, neighbours
expressed ignorance. Thereafter out of anxiety when he was returning to his
village, his co-villager Dindayal Mahto at Village Banda told him that dead
body of his daughter was lying near Rajrappa Washery Railway Track,
Mahuatoli. Accompanied with Dindayal Mahto, when he reached near
Rajrappa Railway Track, he saw the dead body of his daughter was lying
there. He saw that both the hands of his daughter were not there, the flesh
of the left leg including thigh was not there, the upper portion of the head
was totally damaged and even blood was not there. It appeared as if she
had been killed somewhere and to make the same look like suicide, her
dead body was thrown there. It has further been narrated that the reason for
the occurrence is that, the deceased was married to the appellant in the year
1991 and since very inception of the marriage, the appellant and his parents
used to torture and beat the deceased for dowry. In the meantime,
continuously they were called in the community and were requested not to
torture the deceased for dowry, but of no use. To resolve this issue, on
26.03.1999 a community meeting was held in the Village Badkagaon,
wherein the appellant and his parents assured that they will not demand any
dowry in future nor will they beat or torture the deceased. After the said
resolution, the deceased accompanied her husband to her matrimonial
home about 20 days ago. Informant lastly alleged that the appellant and his
parents under a conspiracy have killed the deceased and have thrown the
dead body near the railway track to give it a colour of suicide.
5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Ramgarh Police
Station Case No.91 of 1999 was registered for offences under Sections
302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
Police, after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet
against the appellant and other accused. Thereafter cognizance of the
offence was taken and the case was committed for trial. Charges were
framed against the appellant and other accused for offences under Sections
302/34, 201/34 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and also for offence
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which were read over
and explained to the appellant and other accused. Since the appellant and
other accused pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial.
6. To bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution
had examined 8 (eight) witnesses, namely P.W.1 Din Dayal Mahto, P.W.2
Chandu Mahto, P.W.3 Gangadhar Mahto, P.W.4 Mulo Devi, P.W.5 Ram
Binod Singh, P.W.6 Harihar Mahto, P.W.7 Dharmendra Kumar and P.W.8
Dr. A.A. Farooque.
The prosecution also produced following documents to
substantiate its case, which were marked exhibits:-
Exhibit 1 Panchnama
Exhibits 2 & Signature on the Inquest Report
Exhibit 2/2 Signature on the FIR
Exhibits 3 & Signature on the Fardbeyan
Exhibit 3/2 Signature on the Request Letter
Exhibit 4 Request Letter
Exhibit 5 Fardbayan
Exhibits 6 & Endorsement on the Fardbayan
Exhibit 7 Inquest Report
Exhibit 8 Postmortem Report
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the
appellant and other accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C
wherein they claimed to be innocent. Appellant did not adduce any evidence
in defence.
8. From the statements of witnesses, it is observed that -
P.W.1, Din Dayal Mahto, stated that at 8:00 A.M. when he was
going for work he saw a dead body was lying on the railway track. When he
came near the dead body he found the same is of the deceased Namita
Devi, daughter of Gangadhar. He further stated that the deceased was
married to Umesh 5-6 years ago and after marriage she was residing in her
matrimonial home. After seeing the dead body he went to her matrimonial
home where he did not found anyone.Thereafter he was going to the house
of Gangadhar to tell him about the incident,but on the way Gangadhar met
him when he disclosed the aforesaid fact to him. He further states that on
26.03.1999 a panchayatiwas held, in the village regarding torture meted
upon the daughter of Gangadhar for dowry, wherein he was also present. He
identified the appellant and others .
P.W.2, Chandu Mahto, is an inquest witness who identified his
P.W.3, Gangadhar Mahto, is the informant who is the father of
the deceased. In his statement before the court he stated that on 19.04.1999
Umesh Mahto came to his house and stated that his daughter is missing. On
hearing this he left his son in law there in his house and proceeded with two
other persons to the matrimonial home of the deceased where he found no
one was present in the house. He asked the neighbours but they were not
able to reply. When he was returning, he met Din Dayal on the way, who told
him that the dead body of his daughter is lying on the railway track. When he
reached there he found the body in mutilating condition. He further stated
that there was consistent dowry demand by the husband and in laws of the
deceased and due to which his daughter was subjected to cruelty and
torture by her in laws. He also stated that a panchayati was convened by
him to settle the matter and after the settlement in the panchayati he sent his
daughter to her matrimonial home. He also stated that his son-in-law has
given threat to spoil life of the deceased on non-fulfillment of the demand of
dowry.
P.W.4, Mulo Devi, is the mother of the deceased. She stated
that after the marriage of her daughter she went to her matrimonial home
and after 1-2 months she returned and stated to her that torture had been
meted upon her due to demand of dowry. She also stated that there was
consistent demand of dowry. She stated that there was demand of
Rs.10,000/- which was fulfilled and thereafter they demanded Rs.20,000/.
She also stated that panchayati was held for settlement of the matter. She
also stated that her son-in-law has given a threat to spoil the life of the
deceased on non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. Just after four days
Umesh came and stated about missing of her daughter upon which her
husband went in search of her to her matrimonial home where near a railway
track the dead body of the deceased was found.
P.W.5, Ram Binod Singh, is the police officer who submitted
the charge sheet. He only produced some documents regarding the meeting
held on 26.03.1999.
P.W.6, Harihar Mahto, is the uncle of the deceased. In his
statement he said that the marriage of the deceased took place in the month
of falgun in 1991. He also stated that the deceased came to her paternal
home on 12-03-1999 and narrated the incidence of torture and dowry
demand. He stated that a Panchayati was also held regarding this in which
he also participated. He further stated that on 19.04.1999 he got information
that the deceased was missing upon which he and the father of the
deceased went to the matrimonial home of the deceased where they found
none. While returning, they met Din Dayal Mahto who stated that the dead
body of the deceased was lying near the railway track upon which he and
the informant went and identified the dead body.
P.W.7, Dharmendra Kumar, is the investigating officer of the
case. He identified the Fardbeyan and the formal F.I.R. which were marked
as Exhibit 5 and 2/2 respectively. He prepared the inquest report which was
marked as Exhibit 7 and had sent the body for postmortem examination. He
stated that he inspected the place of occurrence. He saw the dead body of
the deceased which was lying on the railway track. He also said that he
found that both the hands of the deceased were missing and the upper part
of the head was also missing. He also took statement of the witnesses
present there.
P.W.8, Dr. A.A. Farooque, is the doctor who conducted the
autopsy on the deceased. He found the following injuries on the body:
1. Rigor Mortis present in both lower limbs. Upper limbs were absent. Cut
from vessels which is incised wound.
2. Scalp cut just above eyes parietal and occipital bone absent. Brain
matter absent. This is also due to incised wound.
3. Scattered abrasion on the back. Heart-Right chamber partly filled-Left
chamber empty. Lungs intact and congested. Liver intact and congested.
Stomach wall congested. Muco fluid about four ounce. Kidney intact and
congested. Other Viscera's were found N.A.D.
The doctor kept his opinion about cause of death reserved. The postmortem
report was marked as Exhibit 8.
9. In this case we find that there is no eye-witness to the
occurrence. This case is totally based on circumstantial evidence. The dead
body was found near the railway track and no one had seen the occurrence.
Further no one had seen the appellant or the deceased going there. It is
after the occurrence when PW 1 was going from there he saw the dead body
and identified the same to be of the deceased. He tried to inform her in laws
but no one was present there so he decided to communicate the same to the
father of the deceased and when he was on the way he met with the father
of the deceased and told him about the same and thereafter they went to the
place of occurrence. Thus from the evidence of the witnesses we can
conclude that no one has seen the occurrence.
10. As there is no eye witness in this case, the case is entirely
based on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances put forth by the
prosecution are -
1. Consistent demand of dowry and torture by the in laws of the
deceased.
2. Holding of the Panchayati regarding the said demand.
3. After Panchayati threat was also given by the appellant.
4. Missing of the deceased
11. Be it noted that this case is not under Section 304B of the
Indian Penal Code, rather is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Thus, there is no question of presumption of guilt. The prosecution had to
prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
12. From the evidence of PW1, PW 3, PW 4 and PW6 we find that
there was consistent torture meted upon the deceased regarding demand of
dowry. Thus we conclude that there is enough material against the appellant
regarding demand dowry and torture. Further we find that because of
demand of dowry a panchayati was also held which was substantiated by
the statements of PW 1, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 6.
13. After Panchayati also threat was given to the deceased to spoil
life of the deceased on non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry by the
appellant. This fact is substantiated by the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4.
Further after four days of the threat being given the appellant went to the
house of the informant and stated about the missing of the deceased. Thus
we find that the chain of circumstances is linked only to the effect that the
demand of dowry and the torture is proved but it failed to prove the murder
of the deceased and the causing disappearance of the dead body of the
deceased. The cause of death has also not been proved by the prosecution
as opinion of the doctor was kept reserved.
14. Further, no incriminating article was found from the house of
this appellant to suggest that the murder had taken place in the house and
thereafter the dead body was thrown in the railway track. From the evidence
and the argument of the State we understand that the prosecution has tried
to build up a story that the deceased was murdered somewhere and the
dead body was thrown at railway track. If that be so, it was the duty of the
prosecution to prove the place, where the murder had taken place. The
prosecution has failed to bring any evidence or any material in support of the
said plea, thus, this part of the prosecution case that the deceased was
murdered somewhere and the body was thrown at railway track is also not
proved.
15. From the aforesaid evidence we come to the conclusion that the
prosecution has been able to prove the charges under section 498 A of
Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However from
the evidence we do not find sufficient evidence produced by the prosecution
in respect of section 302 and section 201 of Indian Penal Code as there is
no eye witness to the occurrence. No one had seen the appellant or the
deceased near the vicinity nor anyone had seen the appellant placing the
dead body on the railway track in order to remove the evidence of murder.
16. Thus from what has been held above we find that the
prosecution has been successful to prove the charges under Section 498 A
of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but it has
miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant under Sections 302 and
201 of Indian Penal Code. The sentence of the appellant under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
which was awarded by the Trial Court, which is for a period of one year, is
affirmed, however the appellant is acquitted from the charges under section
302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
17. From the records, it transpires that the appellant has already
remained in custody for more than two years. Accordingly, as he is on bail
he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bond.
18. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Pending interlocutory
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
19. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned
forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 14th November, 2024
NAFR/Kumar/Cp-03
